Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:you live in a glass house?

I knew that sooner or later we would get around to greenhouse gases and AGW!

MoapaPk wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:you live in a glass house?

I knew that sooner or later we would get around to greenhouse gases and AGW!

oh, MoapaPk
you make me laugh so very often

MoapaPk wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:you live in a glass house?

I knew that sooner or later we would get around to greenhouse gases and AGW!

And that is a good example of quoting out of context!

Bewdy.

Can someone please send this thread down the laundry chute to PnP, er I mean "off-Route" so we can play with it?
Thanks

MoapaPk wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:you live in a glass house?

I knew that sooner or later we would get around to greenhouse gases and AGW!

What about Reality TV ?

I've tried to read most of this thread, but can only snatch some themes out of the torrent of words. Would someone be so kind as to explain what this beef is about (probably best it not be the main antagonists, but are there any neutral observers out there?) in a clear sentence or two? Much obliged.

I would have been WORRIED if it had been the Mid-Life Crisis Scooter Club !

My nightmares would be filled with big dudes with tattoos (of mountains) on their biceps and shiny chrome-plated motorcycles chasing me !!!

Constantly having to look in my rear-view mirror, for crying out loud.

Dougb wrote:From what I've gathered, Pete is upset at the MLCSC (not the midlife crisis scooter club, but rather a chapter of the sierra club) for something they did that changed the outings section wayyyy back in the 1980s I think, and he can't seem to let it go. He has a grudge or something against the mlcsc from long ago, decisions that they made that he disagrees with. He mentions them often in his posts, and to me it seems like something that really should be buried and forgotten. But he chooses to lock onto it like a bulldog.

edit: I've met Pete and he's a harmless fellow, perhaps 'grudge' is a poor word choice, but for pete's sake, a change of policy in the 1980's is like ancient history...forgeddaboutit man!

Anyhow, there's nothing to worry about ...........
**everyone can breathe a collective sigh of relief**

If its the 1980's, thats the time when insurance premiums to operate organized trips on/in federal park, forest, and BLM lands skyrocketed or vanished altogether. The triggering event was when Chouinard Equipment (the for runner of Black Diamond) got sued when one of their harnesses failed and the climber fell to his death - the climber's surviving relatives blamed it on a faulty Chouinard harness, Chouinard claimed it was excessively worn. The result was insurance companies started raising insurance premiums to sky-high levels, and organizations like the Sierra Club either scaled back their outdoor trips or cancelled them altogether. I believe the Sierra Club kept a basic policy in place, but requried local chapters to provide supplemental insurance if they ran anything more than day hikes on trails, and the Club prohibited anything technical (any sort of aid climbing or use of ice axe/crampons). Some local chapters like the Mother Lode Chapter might have just dropped the overnight trips.

As for racist and bigots in the Sierra Club - there are always a few in every group (as the saying goes "every dog has a few fleas"). Its a normal part of human nature that no laws will ever completey eliminate. No one's requried to belong to the Sierra Club, so drop 'em and move on.

But ... but I LOVE pizza and beer !!!

Others have said it and I'll echo it again: Let it go and move on.

Organizations attract controlling people and people who need attention. From time to time this causes problems in many organizations. Just part of human nature. Sometimes you've just got to walk away from it.

Charity, Inc. seems to be the name of the game lately. just about every tax-exempt group seems to think that they have to get the most out of you that is at all possible. They just can't seem to be thankful for what they get and let it go at that. They spend a good percentage of what you give trying to get more from you. Tell them you don't like that shit and if they don't listen tell them to get lost and walk away.

I don't hike with the Sierra Club; I hike with a hiking club. You want a climbing group - start one. If there are other people who also want it they will show up. You really can have a climbing club with carpools and such without it being a part of the Sierra Club. Have fun with another group and forget about the bullshit.

Thanks dougb and Phydeux for the clarification and background. The Sierra Club is too prominent a national interest group not to have its share of factionalism, petty politics, rigid bureaucracy, and not- so -gentle treatment of those who don't bow to the current orthodoxy on any given issue. But it doesn't have forced membership.

..and we let India go, WAY to easily!...........

Buz Groshong wrote:Organizations attract controlling people and people who need attention. From time to time this causes problems in many organizations. Just part of human nature. Sometimes you've just got to walk away from it.

Charity, Inc. seems to be the name of the game lately. just about every tax-exempt group seems to think that they have to get the most out of you that is at all possible. They just can't seem to be thankful for what they get and let it go at that. They spend a good percentage of what you give trying to get more from you. Tell them you don't like that shit and if they don't listen tell them to get lost and walk away.

Excellent post Buz...

Hey Pete, just got back from 3 days out bagging some remote peaks after driving 440 miles roundtrip in my 17 mpg earth friendlier transport. Thought I might see you out there but looks like you were at the internment camp.

Where did you sign up for that btw?